This case involves a patent infringement lawsuit, but this decision isn’t really about patent law. Legally, it’s about personal jurisdiction. But it’s also an interesting example of how appellate judges interpret sometimes-murky Supreme Court precedent. Personal jurisdiction gets into the thick of legal theory, folks, but I’ll guide you through it. AFTG-TG v. Nuvoton Technology […]
Category: Marynelle’s Posts
Olympics, Yoga poses & Washington Nationals logo – “I See IP” Video Series, Episode 1
Welcome to the first installment of our new vlog, “I See IP,” where we’ll highlight IP issues in real life. This episode features the IP issues getting physical. Hope you enjoy it!
The Lovenox® Patent War, Part 467
Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Nos. 2012-1062, 1103, 1104 (Aug. 3, 2011) (Chief Judge Rader, Circuit Judges Dyk and Moore) Litigation surrounding enoxaparin—a pharmaceutical drug used to prevent blood clots—has been raging for nearly a decade. In fact, this Federal Circuit opinion issued one day before the 9th anniversary of the date when […]
Trademark Law is Not Colorblind
In the fashion world, the word “trademark” tends to get tossed around casually. Style writers highlight a designer’s “trademark” use of patterns or “trademark” silhouette. But can these signature features actually be trademarks? In the case of a color trademark for soles of high heels, the question was hotly debated—so hot, it had the Second […]
Learning the Language of Trademark Law
Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc., No. 10-2007 (4th Cir. 2012) (Chief Judge Traxler, Judges Keenan and Hamilton) If you found this blog post, then you’re probably acquainted with Google™’s search engine. You might also know that Google lets advertisers bid on keywords, which trigger the ads that come up at the top and to […]
A New Prescription for Trademark Protection
It’s been a little while since we had a Federal Circuit trademark opinion, but this is a good one. The case deals with one of my favorite topics in trademark law—trademark “use” and technology. Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., No. 2011-1258 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 3, 2012) (Judges Newman, Linn, and Moore) Getting a Clear […]